Direct representation of the laity is not established among the Wesleyan INIethodists of England. There are, however, preparatory committees appointed by the conference, and composed of ministers and laymen, who revise the connectional business in advance of the an- nual assembling of the conference. These committees shape the measures ado]ited subsequently by the con- ference, their recommendations being usually concur- red in. Direct lay representation has been proposed by the Kev.WiUiam Arthur and JNIr. Percival Punting, and no doubt the proposal will hereafter be much dis- ciissed. The Irish Wesley ans are making steady pmg- ress towards lay delegation. The minor Wesleyan bod-
ies in England (the Primitive IMethodists, New Connec- tion Methodists, etc.) have adopted lay representation. Lay representation first went into effect in the Methodist Episcopal Church South in 18G9. It also exists in the Methodist Protestant, the Methodist, the African Meth- odist, and the African Meth. Episcopal Zion churches.
The history of lay rejiresentation in the Methodist Episcopal Church has been quite eventful. Originally and for many years the Church was governed by the travelling ministers, through annual conferences and a delegated general conference. Early in this century symptoms of a desire for a change in the form of gov- ernment appeared. About 18-22 the Wesleijan Reposito- rij, a paper advocating reform (as it was then called), was established in Philadelphia. Tliis was followed by a convention of " reformers" in Baltimore in 1824, who established as their periodical organ in that citv The Mutual Rifjhts. The objects of attack were the ejpisco- pacy and the clerical government of the Church. In 1827 Dr. Thomas E.Bond issued an appeal to IMethodists against lay delegation which exerted a groat influence in determining the maintenance of the existing system. At the General Conference of 1828 the subject was dis- cussed in the celebrated " Report on Petitions and Me- morials," which denied the claims of the petitioners. This report was unanimous!}' adopted. By this time Church proceedings had been instituted against some of the '-reform party" in Baltimore, which resulted in ex- pulsion. Others withdrew, and in 1830 the Constitution of the '■ Methodist Protestant Church" was formed. The controversy was accompanied and followed with great bitterness on both sides. Looked at from this distmice of time, it is apparent that both parties numbered among their leaders good and strong men, who unfortunately stood upon extreme and irreconcilable propositions. The '• reformers" claimed the admission of the laity to the General Conference on the ground of the right of the pco|Je to share in ecclesiastical legislation ; this claim was denied by the conservative side chiefly on the ground that the General Conference possessed '• no strict- ly legislative powers."
The discussion rested, after the organization Of the Methodist Protestant Church, for more than twenty years. Shortly before the General Conference of 1852, a convention of laymen was held in Philadelphia to take measures for brhiging the subject before the Church once more. This convention, however, disclaimed all connection with the principles of the reformers of 1828, and asked for lay representation on the grounds of expe- diency solely. Dr. Thomas E. Bond, the great antago- nist of the "radicals," met the members of the conven- tion in the most friendly spirit, and conceded to them that la}' delegation put on the ground of expediency was an open question. While still denying the claim of right, he went so far as to suggest a plan of lay co- operation in the annual conferences. The petition of the convention to the General Conference was denied. In the General Conference of 185G an appeal for lay delegation was jiresented again, but received very little attention. By LSGO such progress had been made that the General Conference, assembled in that year, referred the measure to a popular and ministerial vote, to be taken in 1861 and 1862. Both votes were adverse to lay representation; but the vote, though adverse, de- veloped the fact of a growing favor for this important measure. The Methodist, which was estabHshed in 18G0, devoted itself to the advocac}' of it ; other pajjers, espe- cially the Zioris Herald and the Xorth-Wesltrn Advo- cate, urged it upon the Church. A largely-attended convention of laymen was held in New York in the spring of 1863. At this meeting it was resolved to hold another convention, concurrently with the session of the General Conference at Philadelphia, in 1864. The con- vention was so held, and presented througli a deputation of its delegates a memorial to the General Conference, though without immediate rcsidt. A third convention was held, concurrently with the session of the General
LAYRITZ
300
LAZARISTS
Conference at Cliicngo, in 18G8. At this conference a l)i)|)iil:ir and ministerial vote was ordered for a second time. Tlie vote of the lay members, which was large, showed a majority of two to one for lay delegation, and the necessary three fourths of the ministry were se- cured. At the session of General Conference which as- sembled in Brooklyn May 1, 1872, the measure was fully inaugurated, and the lay delegates already elected were admitted to equal powers. The plan tluis adopted pro- vides for two lay delegates for every Annual Conference, with separate votes of the lay and clerical members on any question in case one third of either order demand it. References. — Neander, Uistorij of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, book i, chapter ii, and book iii, chap, v; Hagenbach, History of Christian Doc- trines, ii, 277-283 ; Litton, History of the Church, book iii, chapter ii; Waterworth, CV«io«s and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 172 sq. ; Constitution of the Presbyte- rian Church in the CS.{p\ih]. by Presb. Board, Philadel- phia) ; Life of Bishop Emory, chaps, x, xi ; Economy of Methodism Illustrated and Defended, by Dr. T. E. Bond, Introduction and Appendix; Perrine (Prof. W. H.), The '• Wcsleyan Axiom" expounded: a Plea for a, Lay Dele- gation thoroughly Scriptural, Wesleyan, and Democratic (N. Y. 1872), attacking the plan adopted by the General Conference of 18(38. See Laity. (G. K. C.)